2. Bash your keyboard until you’ve spammed the form enough, whilst dropping a link into the “scoop” field which features your keywords.

3. Grab something like the Firefox Web Dev toolbar and convert the form methods from POST to GET.

4. Hit the button which says “Preview story”

5. Bookmark the url with something like del.ico.us, stumbleupon or onlywire (Note from Mark: basically drop links anywhere to it, to get it indexed)

Voila! You have a link from Slashdot – Now run along and chase your tail in the yard, until the happiness wears off and you’re ready to find 20 other sites, with similar submit pages to exploit!”

Pretty neat trick, huh? Now yes, before someone cries, “but that page won’t have PR9 like the homepage!”, it doesn’t matter. There is a different between getting links from high link equity pages and getting links from trusted domains, they are both important. Authority links are an excellent way to get a new website trusted in Google and get you off to a flying start to rank quickly.

As Andrew points out, there are actually a whole bunch of high authority sites you can use with this technique. We’ll let you figure that part out (:

Neat little trick there. Thanks !! Also, regarding the discussion about nofollow, it’s already been proven (by me) that Google does follow these links and if you’re trying to get a site or blog indexed, you can do it in under 24 hours by posting a comment on a blog like TechCrunch or ProBlogger even if they are nofollow’ed.

You marketing types are forever coming up with ways of screwing over digital democracy to make a quick buck. Too many marketeers don’t realise there’s a difference between business skill and social ignorance. I’d like to word this a little more articulately, but I just can’t. You are fucking over mankind.

Iâ€™m sorry you think that way, but it seems you are misinformed yourself.
I assume you mean that Google will â€œguarantee impartialityâ€, which is probably the most laughable statement Iâ€™ve ever heard.

Yes, the corporate, share-owned company is going to maintain perfect impartiality at the cost of business??

First off, lets look at SERPs – Google is already giving extra icons to those who use their products, such as checkout.

Google offers the highest PPC positions to those who basically, can pay the most.

Oh, but you were referring to the organic algorithm? The one that relies almost totally on link authority?
Who do you think owns the most link authority? Naturally, it will be large media companies like the BBC and news/media networks who can pump out 100s of articles a day and attract the most regular links from net users.
It is these large companies that then decide who to link to and who not to link to and who gets coverage. These media companies arenâ€™t exactly what youâ€™d call non-bias.

I took a look around your website, and to be honest, Iâ€™m in agreement with you it seems with a lot of your political views, which seem quite honorable. However, you still seem to have a childish idealism which doesnâ€™t really work in the real world. Yes, marketing has an impact on society, but I wouldnâ€™t batter this to the same level as brain washing people to buy coke with banners and subliminal messaging, search is pull-marketing and I can provide people with good content, that they search for. Why shouldnâ€™t I rank as well as Fox Corp?

If people donâ€™t like it, they can always look further down the SERPs.

I think you have:
1) Taking search marketing totally out of context, in how users interact with the web.

2) You are patronising readers as if they have no choice about which website to visit, which search engines to use and how they can form their own experience.

3) You have an idealistic (which is fine), but ultimately, unrealistic view of how people are competing on the web.
4) You have missed the fundamental reason of, what makes trying to rank in the search engines so bad, when you can deliver a message of equal or greater quality?

Hereâ€™s the scoop:

Media companies are bias and have a lot of power.

Digg is a closed pen and is gamed regularly, along with most social news sites.

Most of the top search results of gambling, property, finance are blackhat.

Social networking sites are spammed and exploited to hell.

None of my techniques effect the end user experience, so I think itâ€™s fair game. If you canâ€™t see that, being â€œa geek that will inherit the earthâ€ – from your website. Then youâ€™ll be, as geeks say, pwned.

The only thing Google’s out there for is MONEY. Anytime a company goes public, that occurs. You have to take care of the stockholders.

And like every big corporation, Google nevertheless wants to maintain the image that they’re “not that way.” So they make sure they screw you with quality scores and content network bullshit — but in a NICE way.

I think the worst part about it is that they try to lay this bullshit off on you and disguise the bullshit with intellectualized drivel that nobody has the time to analyze or bother with. I’m talking about the “quality” factors that govern the price of ppc words. Google’s got to get their extra pennies in a NICE, intellectualized kind of way. And I don’t think they’re kidding anybody.

To the chaps who noticed that I entered my URL into the URL box and concluded somehow that my intention is to hypocritically increase my site’s rating: don’t be so bloody ridiculous. You know as well as anyone else (so please stop pretending you don’t) that there is a world of difference between placing my URL where it is — quite literally — asked for and exploiting a system based, as best as current technology allows, on trust.

I was originally going to say something else to the gentlemen complaining that I show Google ads on my site, but it’s pretty much the same answer. Unlike many sites that were set up for the sole purpose of having money-making adverts, the adverts on my site were a ‘why not’ afterthought. And I do in fact block individual adverts if I think they are unfair or misleading.

To Mark: you raised some great points in your reply — much better than your original response of ridiculing straw effigies of my arguments and insulting me. I am in full agreement in particular, as I’m sure you’d expect from my content, with your line “Why shouldnâ€™t I rank as well as Fox Corp?” but my initial thoughts still stand: that exploiting an honest community’s trust is ethically questionable to say the least.